Monday, October 26, 2015

A long time ago, like so many other uninformed, unobservant, ignorant fellows, I used to think that if only we could get more women into politics, the world would be a more peaceful place. Maybe I admired Margaret Thatcher at the time, and did not realize that she was an exception to the rule. The rule is: women don’t have the discernment and the backbone that it takes to employ the tough measures that lead to peace. Where do I get that rule from? I get it from the Bible, from passages like 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2—passages that feminists, including women in churches, hate the most. They hate these parts of Scripture the most, not because they misunderstand them, but because those verses are so plain that even dull feminists can make them out. What they see so plainly they hate most fully. What they see most plainly is that the Bible teaches that women are weaker discerners than men and that they have weaker resolve than men. They hate this rule most fully because they are like the pre-redeemed Eve, who was balky behind God’s back and who melted like hot wax before Satan. The rule is that women are more easily led into error than men and that they have less fortitude than men have. Experience and history support the truth of this rule, as I mean to now point out.

Observe the contradiction here. On the one hand, feminists claim that they are, by nature, no different from men. On the other hand, they claim that there is something about women that could make the world a better, safer place.

The city I live in has a woman for a mayor. She is supposed to be an evangelical Christian, but proclaimed in favor of gay pride week. Yes, proclaiming in favor of perversity appeases the gays in the short term. But the more you give in to gay demands, the more the gays demand next time, and this is how we have gotten to the point of having to proclaim a whole week for their celebrations of perverse behavior. At some point, the demands that gays make will be so ridiculous and extensive that there will be an impasse, and peace will be at an end between them and the rest of us. If your Bible states that a certain lifestyle is an abomination, is it not time, as a moral Christian mayor, to refuse to proclaim in favor of their abominable acts? Our mayor lacked both discernment and strength when she came face to face with the demands of the LGBT alphabet.

The country I live in got its first female prime minister in 1993. No one remembers her for anything other than her absurd statement that an election is not a good time to discuss important issues. Her tenure should, all by itself, extinguish the desire in every girl to become a politician.

Will more women in politics pave the way to world peace or at least greater peace? How peaceful was it at the US embassy in Libya after Secretary of State Clinton refused urgent appeals to beef up military security there? It was not very peaceful for the Americans who died as a result of her negligence. What is Hillary Clinton’s answer to this? “What difference does it make?” That’s her answer.

Sweden has been manipulating elections for decades in its aim to reach fifty percent representation by women in parliament. Since the 1980s the number has been at thirty percent and higher. In 2002 the percentage was forty-five. In 2014 the percentage was forty-four. And how is Sweden doing at this thing called peace? Presently there are over fifty no-go zones in Sweden: sectors of cities where the police have ceded control to Muslim gangs. The police themselves issued the report. Largely due to these radical Muslims, Sweden has become the rape center of Europe. Indeed, only one or two countries in the whole world have more rapes per capita than Sweden has. That is what can be accomplished by the carefree, careless implementation of multiculturalism. Well, Sweden’s female politicians contributed to this multicultural nightmare, maybe? Sweden’s deputy prime minister is a woman; its minister for finance is a woman; its minister for strategic development is a woman; its minister for infrastructure is a woman; its minister for employment is a woman; its minister for foreign affairs is a woman; its minister for international development is a woman; its minister for social security is a woman; its minister for children, the elderly, and gender equality is a woman; its minister for education is a woman; its minister for higher education is a woman; its minister for culture is a woman. Have women politicians contributed to the Muslimization of Sweden? I think so, for many of these posts are highly relevant to that problem. Moreover, the Social Democratic Party, the party presently in power, not only has many influential female ministers in it, but boasts a feminist ideology. Feminism and multicultural madness go hand in hand; multiculturalism is at its maddest when Muslim gangs are permitted to commandeer and terrorize whole swaths of European cities. By their lack of wisdom and their emotional liabilities, these women politicians have contributed, and are contributing, to the less than peaceful goings-on in Sweden at this time.

Germany has had a woman for its chancellor since 2005. Angela Merkel is that woman. She has decided to open Germany up to hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of refugees from failed states. Many of these refugees are young men who are steeped in the unbending, cruel dictates of Sharia Law. Will that make for a more peaceful Germany and a more peaceful Europe? How peaceful is Germany’s open door policy to German citizens? How peaceful is it to import thousands of Muslim men who are in their prime years of virility and who worship according to the violent codes of the unholy Koran? Is it not a sign of mental weakness to try to atone for the sins of the Nazis by being gracious to dangerous Muslims? It may be that God means to punish German citizens of today for the sins of their fathers, the Nazis. But is it wise to import Muslims by which to tempt God to actually make that happen?

Women do no better politically than men do. If we take the Bible for our advisor and prophet, we must believe that they will do even worse, the truth of which is beginning to show. The Bible states that it’s a curse to be ruled by a woman (Isaiah 3.12.) In fact, part of the woman’s curse is that she will usually not be allowed to lead (Genesis 3.16.) At the least, when women are pushed into positions of political leadership, the results can be just as detrimental as it can be to have delinquent men for leaders. This is being demonstrated in many places on many levels, as I have just shown.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Oil prices are low these days; the NDP is in charge provincially now; the Liberals are set to rule across the land for years; and the border is a barrier that no oil baron is likely to cross unless blue-collars and rednecks make themselves heard politically. For this to happen, grass roots workers need to be fired up. And for this to happen, some compelling media that they will want to pay attention to, are necessary.

For a long time I’ve wondered why social conservatives in general, and oil and gas companies in particular, are always on the defensive. We don’t have to be. There is no law that says we have to be timid and silent while our ambitions and objectives are being obstructed. The offensive maneuver has been an option all along.

My speech is a brief one. So keep reading or listening. I have no skin in this game and I’m not asking for any personal favors. I am an Albertan and I am concerned about the way things are going. I am a conservative Christian who believes in capitalism, free speech, life, work, family, and the right to convey biblical truth without being persecuted for doing so. Since the Bible supports capitalism, free speech, life, work, family, and preaching, we have all the reason we need to promote moral, prosperous families through the industry that a capitalist ethic generates.

You oil and gas companies have walked on egg shells long enough. You’ve been afraid to speak up and to speak out long enough. You’ve held your tongues long enough. This craven approach, if we may even call it an approach, has done you little good; it will do you great harm to continue like that. When Tim Hortons struck you on the cheek, you turned the other as if that was a good application of a Bible verse! Turning the other cheek to receive another slap is one thing, but doing so when your workers and supporters feel the sting is another. It seems to me that it was left to Rebel Media, both to come to your defense, and then to launch an offensive on your trembling behalf!

(I do not work for Rebel Media.) I have been following Rebel Media’s YouTube channel for a few months now, and have been astonished at what that upstart effort has been able to accomplish with almost no capital. Rebel Media’s bullhorn is what, I believe, made the Alberta NDP back off the salary hike they’d planned to give themselves, for instance.

Oil and gas companies have capital. What they lack these days is bold character. Imagine what you guys could do with a little media engine of your own! (I’m not asking for a job; I’m not asking you to support Rebel Media; I’m not asking you to hire anyone at Rebel Media.) I am giving you oil and gas companies a much needed motivational speech. You must, for your own sakes and for the sakes of those who love industry more than government, begin to take an offensive stance, and to kick yourselves every time you begin to feel ashamed for doing so. Your media apathy is one reason why the NDP is in charge of this province. Smarten up, boys!

Socialism, my friends, is not good for anyone; it’s not biblical; it’s not moral; it’s not progressive; it’s not profitable; and it’s sweeping the land—even the land of Alberta where the oil and gas reserves are. You have the money; rally, then, troops! Get yourselves a conservative media team and put your offensive line in the game! Oppose Marxist tendencies; promote enterprise; get back some of your fortitude and dignity while you do it.

If you feel inclined to take my advice, be cautious about who you select to run your media appliances. Do not be thinking along the lines of turncoats like Preston Manning and Daniele Smith, for example. Dig into the matter of selection with as much zeal and caution as you dig into the earth, for you must find people who will carry your vision forward in such a manner as to not undermine your cause behind your back.

The oil and gas sector is big enough and influential enough to resist being bullied into hesitation, undeserved shame, and finally, into submission, which is what the socialist agenda means to effect. But where is your will? If the LGBT crowd can be brazen enough to push their sins into public for everyone to unqualifiedly accept, then you oil and gas tycoons should be forward enough to put your views out there without apology and with swagger. Think along the lines of ‘Dallas,’ the 1980s drama. The Ewing family was not prudish about wealth that was made through hard work!

This has been a Puritanical opinion on what the Alberta oil and gas sector needs to do in the face of our present-day socialist realities.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Today is election day in Canada. Roughly 200 babies will be aborted; that is, murdered, in Canada today. And we are encouraged to get out there and vote in order to elect our next leader. The Bible says this: “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (1 Peter 2.17.) These four commands are given out by the apostle Peter in his first epistle. My article concerns the fourth: honor the king.

The Roman Empire was the kingdom into which Peter was born. It was a dictatorial empire that was ruled by a cruel Caesar. Insofar as one is able, without denying one’s faith, one should honor his king or leader, even such a king as Caesar was. That is the force which this command carries.

The citizen of Canada lives under a democracy and, as such, is governed by an elected official that the citizen has either said yea or nay to on election day. In our democracy, the leaders of each party urge the citizen to vote. Voting is not mandatory, however, and if it were, it would be debatable, given what our politicians stand for, whether the citizen had just cause to refuse to vote, especially if the citizen were a Christian. Regardless, because our democracy does not bind anyone to vote, it is certain that the citizen may honor his leader in spite of scorning his option to cast a ballot.

The best way to honor a leader is to remind him of the great moral issues of our time and the fact that the leader will be made to answer to God regarding those moral issues that he campaigned on or not, ignored or not, or perhaps belittled into nothing from the highest office in the land.

There are many great moral issues that our politicians, in the midst of a heathenish people, will not campaign on. In light of Old Testament history and the negative fallout resulting from the sins of idolatry, blasphemy, fornication, and adultery, one could make a good case for putting sins like these into a platform as things to campaign against. After all, what politician, if pressed for an answer, would claim to be an atheist?

Another great sin that put Old Testament peoples in conflict with God was murder. Rampant murder, in Old Testament terms, is called ‘polluting the land with blood.’ To pollute the land with blood is to allow murders to go on unrequited (Numbers 35.31.) Immunity to the crime of murder was most conspicuous among the Canaanites, and later the Israelites who imitated the Canaanites, in the practice of shedding the innocent blood of sons and daughters as a form of worship to idols (Psalm 106.38.) That self-made license to kill cannot but remind us of our own self-made license to abort our own sons and daughters in our worship of those two great idols: hedonism and feminism. These idols, if they could speak, would say that a person should be allowed to have sex without bearing responsibility, even if that means that the soul granted by God in the sexual act must be sent right back to God without a chance to live out his days upon the earth.

Politicians may mouth a profession of faith in God at election time. When such a profession is made, it is usually done out of fear of what voters might think if atheism were alluded to instead. The political profession of faith, moreover, commonly comes down to nothing more than a belief in the existence of a higher power that might be anything that anyone might imagine. A profession of atheism is not a good political strategy yet. But a politician’s empty profession of faith in God is good enough to satisfy citizens who are, at best, nominal Christians or bare theists, and who are, in truth, practical atheists. (I speak generally.)

What politicians do have faith in are people and science. So while it is irrational to expect a politician to campaign against idolatry per se, it should be rational to expect one of them to campaign against one of the effects, at least, of the idolatrous worship of hedonism and feminism, for abortion is the murder of people, and according to science, fetuses embody the features and characteristics of people no matter how close the microscopes come to actual conception.

Stockwell Day was intimidated to back off on the abortion issue when he was campaigning at the turn of the millennium. Stephen Harper, who unlawfully succeeded Mr. Day by accepting a kangaroo-style nomination to replace him, gave up the issue of abortion altogether. Now abortion does not even come up as an issue during a campaign.

So what choice does that potential voter have who is concerned about our land being continuously polluted with blood? What choice does he have in the face of it being certain that God will avenge the blood of innocent babes? May he vote for a politician who cares nothing about this pollution and the subsequent judgment that it must draw? One might say that a certain politician does care about the issue as much as some voters do, even though he says nothing against the evil. But what is caring worth and what does it amount to when the person who supposedly cares is silent and inactive about what he cares about? The potential voter might argue that a vote for the best of four bad politicians is the best he can do. But what message does that send except that the voter is okay with the pollution of murder and the judgment for murder that must surely come on account of it? Then the voter might argue that he could vote for the lesser of four evils and at the same time lobby against the pollution. But what message would that send? The politician who is voted for would reason that he has the vote already, and therefore he can continue on his course. By withholding his vote, the citizen has the following advantage: it is his only way of applying a censure and thereby showing all politicians that they are unworthy of his vote; and it is his only way of voting against abortion as a testimony to God. One might vote for a local politician just because that politician says he will bring the issue up whenever he can to the powers higher up. But that does not change the fact that this would be a vote for a party whose leader will not countenance the subject.

If a person votes while the abortion issue is not on the table, that person is agreeing that it does not have to be on the table. To politicians who come to our door, we should reason like so: “if you won’t campaign for the babes, why should we vote for you? A vote for you is a vote for status quo murder on a large scale.” With respect to this campaign, we could reason like so: “I cannot vote Green; I cannot vote Liberal; I cannot vote NDP; I cannot vote Conservative; I reserve my ballot for God.” Objection: “But God is not on the ballot.” Answer: “True, God is not on the ballot, but God will be at the judgment.” If a person cannot vote with a clear conscience before God, a person should not vote. Objection: “But if you don’t vote for Harper, Mulcair or Trudeau might be voted in.” Answer: “Even if Satan himself gets voted in because of my vote being withheld for conscience sake, still, I should not vote.” The prospect of abortion being judged by God should be sufficient to restrain every moral person from voting for politicians who are content to permit the mass murder of defenseless babes to go on. I suppose that an organization called Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada must be in favor of abortion. That site puts the number of abortions in Canada for 2013 at 82, 869. Hospitals must report, while clinics do not have to, it says there. So we have at least 82, 869 abortions for a single year in Canada, and probably many more. And some people are going to tell me that I should go and vote for a politician who cares nothing for this?! I will not vote; Christians should not vote; moralists should not vote; indeed, not one single person in Canada should vote! Voting for mass murder to continue on this scale is no way to honor a leader; it is no way to honor yourself; it is no way to honor Canada; it is certainly no way to honor babies and life; and it most certainly is no way to honor God!

If enough voters held back their votes, the tactic would begin to exert an influence. In fact, many citizens quit voting long ago on account of their politicians being immoral. Those who are not voting ought to make their reasons known, just as I am making my reason known today.

By withholding his vote for a moral reason, the citizen says that even if the greatest of four evils is voted in on account of his personal principle and tactic of not voting, yet he is free of guilt in the matter because he acted so in the interest of standing for, and insisting on, life, and he did so because God is the author of life and the Judge of those who kill. To vote for Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, or May in 2015 is to vote for the pollution of abortion to go on because not one of these four will face that evil down. If the worst of these four is voted in, or anyone who might be second best, wickedness will be permitted to multiply and advance even more than it is doing so under Harper’s watch. That would be God’s way of allowing a rebellious nation to sink deeper into sin for its longstanding disobedience in order to receiving a more pregnant judgment in the future. The moral citizen, meanwhile, can pray that the righteous will be given strength and grace, either to escape the collateral damage, or to bear it faithfully. This nation, incidentally, is reaping the reward for its sins against the unborn already: by importing dangerous, lazy immigrants from failed states, for instance, who, it is vainly hoped, will provide revenue for an aging population, which it would have been much safer to rely on our own babes to supply.

What the moral citizen cannot do, in my opinion, is vote for a politician who is too cowardly to campaign for the abolition and prevention of murders that are presently and daily polluting our land. You do no honor to a king or leader by facilitating, through your vote, his conscience into becoming even more hardened to the evil of abortion than it already is. You honor him best by warning him most; you warn him most by demonstrating that he is not moral enough to vote for.